Author
Adequate support during the interview
The Refugee Law lays down procedural guarantees and provides that if the Asylum Service finds that an applicant is in need of special procedural guarantees, they are provided with adequate support, including sufficient time, so that the applicant can benefit from their rights and comply with the obligations provided for in the Refugee Law throughout the asylum procedures and to make it possible to highlight the elements needed to substantiate the asylum application.[1] The exact level, type, or kind of support is not specified in the law. No other procedural guarantees are provided in the law or administrative guidelines, or in practice, to accommodate the specific needs of such asylum applicants.
In recent years, improvements have been noted in the examination of cases of vulnerable persons including the personal interviews. The Asylum Service has set up a specialised unit for vulnerable persons and children. In 2023, it consisted of 7 caseworkers for vulnerable persons, 2 of which were placed in Pournara, and 6 caseworkers for unaccompanied children. In 2024, it consisted of 5 caseworkers for vulnerable persons, and 5 caseworkers for unaccompanied children.[2]
In practice, cases of persons identified as vulnerable (see: Identification) will be allocated to an examiner trained to deal with vulnerable cases and, in most cases, the applicant will receive an appropriate interview. However, even in such cases, there is not a set procedure or guidance wherein the examiner can request that the applicant receives support, such as medical or psychological support, in order to facilitate the interview and ensure the applicant is in a position to provide the elements needed to substantiate their claim.
In 2024, the IPAC noted that although the applicant underlined that she was a victim of sexual violence and there were serious indications of vulnerability and PTSD in her file, the authority proceeded to carry out the interview without obtaining an expert medical report on the state of her health or applying any procedural guarantee. Also, the authority did not wait for the medical results before drafting the decision so that any findings thereof would be duly considered while assessing the application. As a result, the procedure lacked due investigation regarding the profile of the applicant and her potential vulnerability. Moreover, the entire procedure was devoid of all due procedural guarantees since the statutorily-mandated procedure to examine the possibility of granting these guarantees was not followed.[3]
Furthermore, still in 2024, cases continued being observed in which applicants were not identified as vulnerable either because many applicants do no undergo vulnerability assessments or because their vulnerability appeared after registration, i.e., when vulnerability assessments are carried out.
In such cases, an interview will most probably be carried out by an officer/caseworker who lacks the necessary training, unless a legal representative of the applicant communicates the issue to the Asylum Service. Moreover, specific interview techniques are not systematically used, and practice still depends on individual officers/caseworkers conducting interviews. Due to the lack of a quality control mechanism, similar cases are often examined in a different manner resulting in different outcomes, such as LGBTIQ cases and cases of torture and trafficking. As there is no internal procedure to refer cases, an examiner without the necessary training and expertise will often continue with the interview and examination of the application. In view of the lack of a complaints mechanism in the Asylum Service, applicants have no recourse to address issues such as caseworkers failing to take into consideration their vulnerabilities or sensitivities; not being impartial; carrying out the interview in an interrogatory manner or having a problematic attitude.[4]
If requested, usually in writing, a social advisor or psychologist can escort a vulnerable person to the interview. However, due to the low capacity of available services, this is not utilised very often. Based on cases represented by CyRC, when such a request is made it is granted, but capacity only allows for 2-3 cases per year. The role of the social advisor or psychologist during the interview is to provide support for the applicant. They do not intervene in the interview.
Exemption from special procedures
The Refugee Law also provides that where such adequate support cannot be provided within the framework of the Accelerated Procedure, in particular where it is considered that the applicant is in need of special procedural guarantees as a result of torture, rape, or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, the Head of the Asylum Service shall not apply, or shall cease to apply, the accelerated procedure.[5]
Asylum applications submitted by vulnerable groups of asylum applicants such as victims of torture, severe forms of violence and unaccompanied children follow the regular examination procedure.
In practice the use of the accelerated procedure was only initiated toward the end of 2019 with limited use until late 2022.[6] Cases have been identified that were initially being examined under the accelerated procedures and were transferred to the regular procedure due to the applicant raising arguments that are complex and cannot be examined within the 30-day timeframe as stipulated by the Law (usually either due to submitting a lot of evidence or there being a need for multiple interviews).[7] There is no data available on the number of cases that may have started out in the accelerated procedure and have been moved to the regular procedure.
[1] Article 10A Refugee Law.
[2] Information provided by the Cyprus Asylum Service.
[3] Applicant v Republic of Cyprus through the Asylum Service (Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία και/ή μέσω Υπηρεσίας Ασύλου), Application No 595/2022, 30 September 2024, available in Greek here and an EUAA summary in English here.
[4] Information based on cases represented by the Cyprus Refugee Council.
[5] Article 10Α(3)(a).
[6] Based on cases reviewed by the Cyprus Refugee Council.
[7] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.